Check whether the transcript-refine gate is open or closed for a podcast project. Use this status to know if approve_edits is blocked while refinement is still open.
Report the transcript-refine gate status (blocking approve_edits while open).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_path | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Input schema / properties / project_path / anyOfAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / project_path / defaultAdded value: +nullInput schema / properties / project_path / typeRemoved value: -"string"Input schema / requiredRemoved value: -[
- "project_path"
-]v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the gate blocks approve_edits while open, but does not state that the tool is read-only, whether it has side effects, or what the status values mean. Partial behavioral disclosure.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every clause contributes to purpose and consequence.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The simple status-check tool has an output schema, so return values needn't be explained, and the purpose plus blocking effect are covered. However, with no annotations and an undocumented optional project_path parameter, the description is incomplete about parameter semantics and explicit usage timing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The single optional parameter project_path has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. The description therefore fails to compensate for the schema gap, adding no meaning about what project_path does or what happens when it is omitted.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Names a specific verb ('Report') and resource ('transcript-refine gate status'), and the parenthetical adds the operational consequence. It is clearly distinct from sibling status tools like align_status_tool or render_status_tool by resource, though it does not explicitly name an alternative tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The parenthetical 'blocking approve_edits while open' implies the caller should check this before attempting approve_edits, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternative. Implied usage only.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.